Patient Safety Incidents Describing Patient Falls in Critical Care in North West England Between 2009 and 2017.

AIM: The aim of the study was to review reported falls in critical care units to see whether the causes and results were different from those described in a general hospital population. METHODS: We reviewed and classified patient safety incidents describing falls from critical care units in the North West of England between 2009 and 2017. The classification reviewed patient and staff factors contributing to the fall, the environment of the fall, and the reported consequences. We then calculated and compared rates of falls in different units. RESULTS: There were 914 falls reported, representing only 2.0% of all reported incidents. The median (interquartile range) unit rate was 1.0 falls per 1000 (0.5-1.2) days, and falls were unrelated to the number of single rooms and were no more common in specialist units. There were 304 (33%) falls in patients transferring (207 to standing, 8 from standing), and there were 259 (28%) falls from bed. Patient factors included attempting tasks without assistance (323 incidents [35%]) and organic confusion (188 incidents [21%]). Staff factors included being away from the patient (375 incidents [41%]). Harm was described in 201 incidents (22%), including removal of medical devices (40 incidents), injury to staff (10 incidents) subdural hematoma, and possible spinal injury (1 incident each). CONCLUSIONS: There is a low rate of falls and associated harm in critical care units. The variation between units suggests that this rate could be further reduced by the prevention and management of delirium and by educating patients and staff to take care when moving patients to the standing position.

Unplanned Removal of Medical Devices in Critical Care Units in North West England Between 2011 and 2016.

BACKGROUND: The unplanned removal of medical devices poses a risk of harm to critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine rates, causes, and consequences of unplanned medical device removal, as well as factors mitigating harm to patients, in critical care units in the United Kingdom by reviewing patient safety incident reports. METHODS: Incidents of unplanned medical device removal in critical care units in North West England between 2011 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and classified. The incidents were classified by type of device displaced, staff and patient factors, causes and consequences of removal, and staff actions following removal. Displacement rates were calculated per 1000 patient days per unit. RESULTS: A total of 34 705 incident reports were reviewed, of which 1090 described unplanned device removal. The median rate of device removal was 0.7 (interquartile range, 0.4-2.2) per 1000 patient days per unit. Devices displaced most commonly included nasogastric tubes (317), central catheters (245), tracheostomy tubes (174), and endotracheal tubes (140). A total of 11 cardiac arrests were reported (8 associated with airway devices and 3 with central catheters). Factors contributing to displacement included initial placement (188), patient factors (563), and manual handling (238). Manual handling was cited in 49% of central catheter incidents and only 9% of nasogastric tube incidents. Patients' organic confusion was a factor in 16% of endotracheal tube and 80% of nasogastric tube removals. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned device removal may cause patient harm and is often preventable. The causes and consequences depend on the type of device removed.

Patient safety incidents associated with failures in communication reported from critical care units in the North West of England between 2009 and 2014.

Communication is central to the safe and effective delivery of critical care. We present a retrospective analysis of hospital incident reports attributed to communication that were generated by 30 intensive care units in the North West of England from 2009 to 2014. We reviewed when during the critical care pathway incidents occur, the personnel involved, the method of communication used, the type of information communicated and the level of harm associated with the incident. We found that patient safety incidents tend to occur when patients are transferred into or out of the intensive care unit and when information has to be communicated to other teams during the critical care stay. We then examine ways that the patient handover process may be modified to improve communication and safety.

An analysis of patient safety incident reports describing injuries to staff working in critical care in the North West of England between 2009 and 2013.

BACKGROUND: Critical care environments are potentially high-risk areas for staff harm due to procedural demand and increased incidence of delirium/dependence. The principal types of harm and temporal trends have not yet been quantified. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a multicentre dataset prospectively collected over a five-year period. All patient safety incidents reported to a regional network project were analysed; those recorded as staff harm were extracted, quantified and assessed by thematic analysis to identify key areas of harm, temporal trends and incident rates. RESULTS: Staff harm accounted for 7% of all reported patient safety incidents over the study period. Incident rates remained static, ranging annually from 2.6 to 3.7 episodes/1000 patient days. Assaults on staff accounted for the highest proportional contribution on thematic analysis, which was a consistent annual finding. Sharps injuries and manual handling incidents were also notable contributions. Temporal trends for each theme remained static over the study period implying limited reduction in staff harm despite implementation of national guidance and local initiatives. CONCLUSION: Staff harm is a consistent issue for those working in critical care. Assaults on staff appear to be the highest contributor on thematic analysis. These data imply significant reduction in harm can still be achieved and can be used to design and implement interventional measures.

Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus on admission to intensive care: incidence and prognostic significance.

We retrospectively studied the prevalence of the nasal carriage of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on admission to a medical surgical intensive care unit (ICU). We also compared the intensive care survival of MSSA carriers with non-carriers. Records of 678 patients admitted over a 24-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Nasal swabs were taken from 565 patients on admission to the ICU. MSSA was isolated from the anterior nares of 126 (22%) patients, MRSA was isolated in 16 (3%) patients and 423 (75%) patients had no nasal carriage identified. MSSA carriers were more likely to have been admitted to the ICU after less than 24 h hospital stay (28% non-carriers, 44% MSSA carriers) and were significantly younger (mean age of 50 years) than non-carriers (mean age 55 years). The median survival (with confidence intervals (CI)) was 29 days (CI 14-44) in non-carriers, 16 days (CI 10-22) in MSSA carriers and 6 days (CI 4-8) for the MRSA carriers. This difference was significant when MSSA carriers were compared with non-carriers ( p=0.003). The ICU mortality was also significantly higher ( p=0.004) in MSSA carriers (88 of the 423 (21%) non-carriers and 40 of 126 (32%) MSSA carriers died prior to ICU discharge).

Occult splenic rupture with cardiovascular collapse: a report of three cases in critically ill patients.

Three cases of splenic rupture causing cardiovascular collapse in critically ill patients are discussed. The first patient had received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the days before the collapse, the second patient was recovering from severe sepsis and the third patient was recovering from severe sepsis, had received CPR and had undergone percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). The diagnosis was made at post mortem in two of the patients, the third patient, who bled following PEG, survived after prompt surgical intervention. Splenic rupture should be considered as part of the differential diagnosis of unexpected cardiovascular collapse in patients who have received CPR or who are recovering from sepsis.